Post by gabbi on Jul 28, 2019 11:10:25 GMT

First of all, let me say I like the new Wounds mechanic, it makes less likely that a model survives for too long, and also makes Tough rule more interesting and less like "wounds with a different name".

Now to some thoughts. In recent plays I have noticed how the increase by "steps of 3" seems a bit too rough. I mean, weapons with Deadly(6) are almost a joke in GFF, unless the occasional Tough(6) monster is on the table, but they are very few and no every force have access to any (not that I think they should, faction diversity is something I appreciate). While I can understand why the steps-by-3 have been used in GF (or, I think I can understand - actually I've never played a game) if you have one Missile Launcher with Deadly(6) and on the other side ten grunts, it still makes sense, but in GFF it seems a bit overkill. In such a low model count game, some more detail or "granularity" would provide more diversity among the troops and the weapons (i.e. using Though and Deadly in complete range between 2 and 6). I would widely reduce the presence of deadly(6) weapons and tough(6) models, and introduce some deadly(2), deadly(4), tough(2), tough(4)...I understand this would lead to a lot more playtesting and a re-evaluation of lots of point-costs, but the game would be improved by having abilities re-scaled to better fit its dimension. This is just an idea, I'd like to have more tough and deadly in the range of 1-4, a few 5s and even fewer 6s. But maybe it's just me. And of course, in case this would be considered, it doesn't need to be made right now. Maybe it's just something that could be considered for some future update..?